A.380 hits plane at JFK.

I suspect the footage as seen on YouTube and everywhere else depicts events as happening somewhat faster than they actually did.
I’m guessing that it’s come from a standard CCTV camera recording at something like four or five frames a second, which means that as seen it’s probably speeded up by a factor of five or thereabouts.
With 60-odd people on board, unfastening their safety belts, starting to stand up, groping for hand luggage etc – and yes, I know they shouldn’t be doing it – a violent wrench round at the speed suggested by the footage would have produced a lot of broken bones on board the RJ and even, heaven forbid, the possibility of fatalities.
If anyone has definite knowledge to ther contrary that I’m willing to stand corrected, of course.

I don’t think it looks that fast in the first place. I mean, I don’t think it’s speeded up on the film and it looks no faster or slower than today’s taxi speeds, which must be around 40, 50 mph?

If the A380 was going very slow, I would suggest the CRJ would have had more damage. As it happened, the impact caused it to bounce out of the way, springing off its undercarriage. If the A380 was going dead slow, the CRJ would have been pushed along more, scrubbing the tyres. This would have bent the Vert Fin.

A TV report I saw said the RJ had to brake suddenly to avoid a vehicle…anyway you look at it, it’s the A380 that hit a stopped aircraft.

BTW: the Air France jet looks to have been going a bit fast. Wonder if that is recorded on its FDR?

From a layman’s point of view the first thing that got my attention on the video is the truck passing across the nose of the CRJ.

Which then lead to had this aircraft stopped short of intended location, therefore leaving it’s tail dangling into the taxiway.

I suspect the footage as seen on YouTube and everywhere else depicts events as happening somewhat faster than they actually did.
I’m guessing that it’s come from a standard CCTV camera recording at something like four or five frames a second, which means that as seen it’s probably speeded up by a factor of five or thereabouts.
With 60-odd people on board, unfastening their safety belts, starting to stand up, groping for hand luggage etc – and yes, I know they shouldn’t be doing it – a violent wrench round at the speed suggested by the footage would have produced a lot of broken bones on board the RJ and even, heaven forbid, the possibility of fatalities.
If anyone has definite knowledge to ther contrary that I’m willing to stand corrected, of course.

does anyone know if the CRJ will be totaled or is it repairable? Also…I wonder if any of the passengers will be complaining of “whiplash”?

Your last sentence sums it up – he could have and should have stopped

Hi Andy
Your last sentence sums it up – he could have and should have stopped, when he saw the CRJ tail ahead and to port.
It almost sounds like he was technically unaware of the actual clearance (width) his A-380 required. Not very re-assuring for his 400+ pax and 25 crew.

A TV report I saw said the RJ had to brake suddenly to avoid a vehicle…anyway you look at it, it’s the A380 that hit a stopped aircraft.

BTW: the Air France jet looks to have been going a bit fast. Wonder if that is recorded on its FDR?

A380 was moving, CRJ was stopped. Air France to blame – end of. Commander is ALWAYS responsible for the safety of the aeroplane.

Now, there could be faults with the layout of the apron and taxiways, ATC may have cleared the A380 to taxi incorrectly, or the CRJ pilot may not have complied with instructions or procedures associated with parking on the ramp… Those extenuating circumstances may have increased the likelihood of a collision. But, the A380 bumped into the CRJ and no amount of bad design, duff ATC instructions or failure to comply by other pilots absolved a commander from ALWAYS ensuring his aeroplane is bei g operated safely. On the ground – if in doubt, stop.

Andy

Has anyone got a better transcript for ATC and AF007 and Comair

Has anyone got a better transcript for ATC and AF007 and Comair

My amateur ears pick up the following crucial dialogue/s in the http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121691.

ATC: Air France 7 super Runway 22 Right turn left on Alpha, Hold Short Echo

7 Super: Left from Alpha (then garbled)

ATC: Air France 7 Super (garbled)

ATC: Air France 7 Super hold short! (momentary hesitation and change of instructions) Give way to opposite direction traffic at Kilo Delta

7 Super: Give way to ‘opposition’ (at least that is what I hear in a French accent)

Then Comair 553 reports collision.

It does show why it is important to keep the seat belts tightened untill instructed by the crew it is safe to take them off!

Having seen this,I can actually appreciate that now.

I’ll admit that the minute the wheels touch down I’m usually unbuckling,finding my mobile and nagging my husband to take the complimentary bag of peanuts with him.

If the A380 was on the centreline of ‘A’, the CRJ-900 would have to have had its tail 15m before the stop bar on ‘M’. If you look at the video when the A380 first contacts the CRJ, the right wingtip hits the ground on this stop bar. Clearly then, the CRJ was infringing on the A380s space, rather than the other way about.

Each time I watch the video I must admit it takes me back to childhood Dinky Toys

Each time I watch the video I must admit it takes me back to childhood Dinky Toys.

I had a Super Constellation, Avro York, Vickers Viscount and many others and my father had kindly constructed for me out of plywood a complete airport with hangars, runways, taxiways and aprons.

It was always a case of the wing peripheries of the Super Constellation over hanging the edges of the taxiways so there is the slight similarity of this collision at JFK. While saying that I am not stating that the Airbus A-380’s wings were wider than the taxiway. What appears to be case though is that the CRJ’s tail had not cleared the taxiway fully when the Airbus A-380 came along to the intersection.

The pax and crew of the CRJ were very very lucky as it appears watching the video that the CRJ pivots through 90 deg on (albeit for seconds) the starboard undercarriage (simply tossed out of the way by the giant Airbus A-380)

Some of the problems of handling the Airbus A-380 – it’s size and capacity have not been obviously fully resolved even at major international airports.

I’ll leave the assigning of responsibility or fault to the authorities, but it’s already pretty clear what happened based on what’s been reported so far. The Comair jet never cleared taxiway Mike because their gate area wasn’t clear. Did they alert the controller they weren’t clear? Were they required to? They held short while waiting for the equipment to be cleared with their tail still too close to Mike, at least for an oversized jet like the A380. The AF A380 came along at what appears to be a fairly rapid rate. I have no idea if he was moving too fast, that is for authorities to decide.

The limiting A380 design factor for use at current airports wasn’t runway length or even MTOW, it was width of taxiways and size of gate areas. There are still areas like this at many airports where the margins are just too close when it comes to the A380. If there had been a fire there would have been nearly 600 people at risk in just seconds. I’ve seen the emergency evacuation test footage for the A380 and I know they passed, but I sure wouldn’t want to be one of 525 people trying to escape an A380 with a transcontinental fuel load, while burning on the tarmac. I don’t like Airbus aircraft for dozens of technical reasons, and while the A380 is a beautiful aircraft I don’t ever want to fly on one. Way too many people on board.

Some more interesting facts of the area where the collision occurred

Some more interesting facts of the area where the collision occurred

http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-04-12_airbus.asp

It includes some diagrams and a satellite image of the collision area.

“……..The length of taxiway Mike from the north edge of Alpha, across the perimeter road to the beginning of the ramp area, is very short. It is unclear where exactly the CRJ was stopped in this area and for how long. When given instructions to taxi to a ramp area, aircraft are not supposed to stop on taxiways unless they advise ground control ahead of time. The Delta ramp area may have been too congested for the CRJ to fully clear the taxiway.

In the case of the Airbus, all aircraft in motion are to ensure that their movement will not cause a collision. From the center of an A380 to one of its wingtips is 130.9 feet. The NTSB will look into the circumstances of this collision and future issues such as if Alpha taxiway is an appropriate route for the A380 and other larger aircraft. ………”

Was that enough force to write-off the CRJ-700?

Some interesting technical facts in this blog ….

Some interesting technical facts in this blog ….
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2011/04/12/when-an-airbus-a380-and-a-bombardier-crj-700-meet-%E2%80%A6/

“…..With the Comair CRJ-700 on Taxiway Mike, Air France Flight 7, an Airbus A380-800 (388) was taxing on Taxiway Alpha towards its departure runway….
……but at the moment one question seems to stand out … where exactly was the Comair CRJ-700′s tail?…
…..With the Airbus A380 on Taxiway Alpha, taxing on the centerline, its wingspan of 261.6 feet should not have extended beyond the 284 foot width of Taxiway Alpha…..
……Watching the video and listening to Tower audio of the incident of the incident, it appears that the controller in the tower did not properly space the aircraft to ensure that the Comair CRJ-700 was full onto Taxiway Mike before allowing the Air France A380 to cross the intersection.”

There goes Air France’s No Claims Bonus.

since 2000 they’ve written off a Concorde, an A340 and an A330. I would hazard a guess that their no claims bonus ain’t worth all that much.

(Semi seriously: I wonder how many on board the CRJ700 will be putting in claims for “whiplash injuries“?

Like I once joked insurance companies should be allowed to buy advertising space on the outside of winglets: “if you can read this, call us at 0800-CRASH for a good settlement!”.

As for who is to blame, too early to tell. Could be the Air France crew, could be the Delta (Comair) crew. It’s even possible neither of them is fully to blame, but that blame lies with ground control or apron control.

It does show why it is important to keep the seat belts tightened untill instructed by the crew it is safe to take them off!

There goes Air France’s No Claims Bonus.

Damn it where’s the “Like” button when you need it 😀

but yeah it must have left the Flight Deck crew a bit dazed in the CRJ :S

What speed was he taxiing at?!! Whilst it would not have avoided the collision traveling at that speed at night is not right.

Rgds Cking

You’re right. He was really tanking it.

I would not have liked to be on that CRJ! Looked like the A380 was going at quite a speed!

ATC Recording off the Incident!

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121691

The Aviation Safety Network report is at http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=121690 and is worth a look.

Hmmm…why do I keep thinking of those ads that go “Had an accident? Not your fault? Call Claims Direct – we’ll get you 100% compensation!”

(Semi seriously: I wonder how many on board the CRJ700 will be putting in claims for “whiplash injuries“?